Convened By
\nThe Getty Conservation Institute in collaboration with a consortium of international organizations<\/p>\n
Theme Details
\nPlease note that all the sessions (1.5 \u2013 2 hours each) organized under this theme will take the form of moderated panel discussions with invited presenters and responders, followed by dialogue with the audience. They are intended to address broad issues related to a particular sub-theme rather than present the work of individuals, and will not consist of paper presentations.<\/p>\n
Most archaeological societies have highlighted conservation as a core value in their codes of ethics, statements of mission and governance. Recognizing such initiatives within the archaeological community, the WAC-5 organizing committee has identified conservation as a major congress theme. A consortium of conservation-related organizations is undertaking this theme for WAC-5 in collaboration with the Getty Conservation Institute, with the aim of further strengthening the relationship between the professions of archaeology and conservation.<\/p>\n
Over the years conservation has matured into a truly interdisciplinary profession, responding to a need that far transcends the historic role of the conservation technician working on an archaeological site. The interface between conservation and archaeology has been growing stronger, as conservation professionals take on an increasingly central role in conceptualizing and planning, decision-making and implementation with regard to archaeological materials and sites. Values-based decision-making with stakeholder and community involvement is becoming the norm in the management and conservation of archaeological sites and collections.<\/p>\n
The emphasis within this theme will be on global issues that are crucial to the survival of the archaeological heritage in today\u2019s world. Among these are policy-based and social issues that now counterbalance the traditional scientific and technical domains of expertise in archaeological conservation. Foremost among these new directions are methodological site management planning and implementation, as well as increased participation by indigenous people, communities and stakeholders in decision-making, in interventions on sites, and in determining the disposition of excavated objects.<\/p>\n
At the same time, development presents an ever greater threat to the world\u2019s archaeological record in many countries. Tourism to archaeological sites, with its many attendant stresses on fabric and authenticity, has been a boom industry in recent decades and shows no sign of abatement. The role of conservation is likely to expand in the future to include more aspects of decision-making concerned with the management, preservation, use and sustainable preservation of sites and collections. In this regard, education, of both the professional and the public, will facilitate the acceptance of conservation\u2019s broader role. Thus, a fusion of interests between archaeology and conservation serves both disciplines.<\/p>\n
The formation of a coalition of partner organizations to represent and address the various components of this theme is intended to give greater emphasis and authority to this message. Three plenary papers and eleven panels will be offered in which leaders in the fields of conservation and archaeology will introduce topics for discussion. Sub-themes include world heritage sites, stakeholder issues, tourism, archaeological collections, interventions and innovative approaches to archaeological conservation. We welcome suggestions on these and other related topics.<\/p>\n
Conservation is a calling that is concerned with the past, but for the future. Cultural and natural heritage are often integral; they form a continuum ranging from museum collections to archaeological environments. Between the two lie resources that inextricably link culture and nature: archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and monuments in natural settings. Our joint role and function as conservationists and archaeologists is to see and save the whole. We should strive to be good ancestors for future generations.<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nGetty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nSelma al Radi
\nResearch Fellow, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University & Co-director, Amiriya Mosque and Madrassa Restoration Project, Rada, Yemen
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 2.00PM-3.30PM Room No Details Available<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nGetty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nRosemary Joyce, University of California, Berkeley
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 2.00PM-3.30PM Room No Details Available<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nGetty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nBrian Fagan
\nUniversity of California, Santa Barbara<\/p>\n
Presentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 2.00PM-3.30PM Room No Details Available<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nThe Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThe 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (also known as the World Heritage Convention) is arguably a triumph that reflects a common awareness of the need to preserve places of outstanding values. World Heritage designation brings with it status, and often lucrative tourism, and a number of countries have embarked on active programs of nomination. The list has grown rapidly. In 1995, there were 469 properties; in January 2000 the list comprised 480 cultural sites and 22 mixed sites of the total 630 properties. Many are archaeological sites, or sites with significant archaeological resources.<\/p>\n
The issues threatening global archaeological heritage are epitomized at archaeological World Heritage Sites. Despite national pride in World Heritage status, the management, conservation and maintenance at sites where resources are inadequate could be significantly improved. Development, tourism, pollution and a host of adverse impacts threaten these sites, despite commitments necessarily entered into by the governments that nominated their sites.<\/p>\n
The panel on this sub-theme will develop the issues of management, conservation and the challenges to effective preservation while yet allowing appropriate use. Topics covered will include: the effectiveness of charters\/guidelines as applied to World Heritage Sites, seeking ways to create greater exchange and cooperation between site managers, especially on a regional and a national basis, and mechanisms whereby more intensive and continuing monitoring can effectively be put in place.
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room Hannon 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nWorld Tourism Organization and the Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nAs witnesses to historical events, artistic and technological achievement, and religious devotion, monuments and sites have always attracted the gaze of visitors. This is particularly so in the case of antiquities, which offer direct physical connections to the written and unwritten histories of past civilizations. Travel and viewing are acts of cultural understanding that attribute meanings and values to sites, thereby producing heritage. If \u201cthe past is a foreign country,\u201d then all those who rediscover, interpret, preserve, or simply enjoy the past are to some degree tourists. Tourism thus has major consequences \u2013 theoretical and pragmatic \u2013 for the objects of its gaze.<\/p>\n
Tourism is now accessible to a majority of the population of developed nations and to growing numbers of the inhabitants of developing countries. This positive situation offers a broad spectrum of people opportunities for leisure, enjoyment of the natural environment, and better acquaintance with their own and foreign cultures.<\/p>\n
Archaeological heritage is increasingly seen as an asset, both in terms of symbolic value and as a source of revenue. Indeed, tourism can be the most effective vehicle for archaeology\u2019s ethical obligations to public education and outreach. Similarly, through tourists\u2019 interest in archaeological sites and the income it generates, local communities can appreciate the values \u2013 symbolic and economic \u2013 of archaeological sites and participate in their protection and conservation. Sites that are desirable tourism destinations are more likely to be saved from physical decay, to attract investment in site protection and visitor services, and to generate local economic opportunities.<\/p>\n
At the same time, unregulated tourism can impede the goals of scientific research and irreversibly affect the long-term preservation of archaeological sites. Examples of tangible and intangible damage abound and involve issues of physical harm, adverse ecological impacts, commodification, and alienation from the living cultural landscape. Striking a sustainable balance between access, research, and stewardship depends on identifying viable solutions and integrating archaeological practice with the political and economic realities in which it increasingly operates.<\/p>\n
This panel approaches tourism as an unavoidable and potentially positive reality of our times. It examines the challenges tourism poses to archaeological heritage and explores sustainable ways of moving from conflict to cooperation through viable partnerships between tourism, conservation, and archaeology professionals. The presentations examine a variety of cases where tourism managers and professionals involved in the management and conservation of archaeological sites have had to strike a suitable, sustainable balance, while involving the local communities and other relevant stakeholders in the search for solutions.<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Scott Cunliffe (Austria)
\nJose Antonio Lasheras (Spain)
\nNelly Garc\u00eda Robles (Mexico)
\nWilleke Wendrich (USA)
\nWolfgang Wurster (Germany)
\nEugenio Yunis (Spain)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nAustralia ICOMOS and National Monuments of Chile<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis sub-theme will analyze the challenges that face archaeologists and conservation professionals in planning, decision-making, and management of archaeological sites and objects. At the same time, it will focus on the growing role of the community and its various leaders in deciding what to protect and how. It will consist of two sessions: \u2018Concepts and Values\u2019 and \u2018Practice and Futures.\u2019 The first session will address contemporary practice and the second will augment this discussion with perceptions of stakeholder involvement in the future of these projects.<\/p>\n
The concept of stakeholders implies that no single constituency has the right to stake an individual claim to heritage. We are concerned not so much with who owns the heritage as how we can protect it and how it can be used as a bridge to achieve a better understanding of diverse perspectives, leading to a respect for cultural diversity and an awareness of universal values.<\/p>\n
Heritage managers have long been required to deal effectively with difference, but it is only within the past decade that explicit models, such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, have been developed and made available through publication. The need for effective models has grown out of the recognition that heritage is extraordinarily valuable and can be highly contentious, leading to prolonged judicial disputes that frequently do little to resolve the fundamental issues and more often than not heighten tensions between different voices.<\/p>\n
This panel will bring academics and practicing professionals with a track record of building bridges together with individuals who represent community voices. It will profile the success stories, those models that have worked, analyzing why they worked while touching only briefly upon the context of the case study. In other words, the focus will be on why it worked rather than what happened.<\/p>\n
While heritage conservation has typically been considered a technical problem, social and economic issues have frequently been at the forefront of our thoughts over the past two decades. Who are the interest groups and what are their social values? What are the consequences of their holding these values? What are meaningful ways to negotiate and how can heritage conservation specialists be more effective in their day-to-day practice?<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Pisit Charoenwongsa (Thailand)
\nBrian Egloff (Australia)
\nAnabel Ford (USA)
\nNelly Garc\u00eda Robles (Mexico)
\nSharon Sullivan (Australia)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nState Administration of Cultural Heritage of the People\u2019s Republic of China and the Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThe wealth of China\u2019s cultural heritage is astounding, but perhaps not unexpected, given the antiquity, size, and diversity of the country \u2013 it spans a territory the size of the U.S., with contrasts and extremes of geography and environment, from deserts and mountain ranges to tropics and desolate steppe. Its unbroken civilization for the last 3,000 years and its large and inventive population has created a vast range of archaeological heritage.<\/p>\n
With the emergence of China since the late 1970s as an economic and world power, rapid development is occurring. Almost daily, important archaeological finds are made. And, with the increase in wealth and disposable income in China, tourism is on the rise. These all combine to create new and powerful threats to add to the \u201ctraditional\u201d ones of deterioration and decay with which archeologists and conservation professionals characteristically have to deal.<\/p>\n
The panel will discuss Chinese archaeology and conservation in a climate of rapid development and economic growth from four perspectives: the existing relevant laws and regulations and their application; the management of archaeology and cultural heritage conservation in conjunction with large-scale infrastructure development; urban development and rescue archaeology; and the discovery of archaeological sites and their conservation.<\/p>\n
China\u2019s transition into the mainstream of international thinking and practice through initiatives such as the development of professional guidelines for the management and conservation of heritage sites will be outlined. The policy for archaeological research will be discussed in order that the international archaeological and conservation communities may better understand conditions in China today regarding the implementation of archaeology and the practice of conservation<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Neville Agnew (USA)
\nTongbin Chen (China)
\nYongqu Feng (China)
\nJingchen Wang (China)
\nYi Wang (China)
\nXiaohong Wu (China)
\nJiarong Yuan (China)
\nQiang Guan (China)
\nGuolong Lai (China)
\nZhijun Yang (China)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nThe American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works and Smithsonian (SCMRE)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nWhen the excavation is complete (whether that be of a particular feature or an entire site) the collections of artifacts and physical evidence amassed, as well as the records created by the archaeological team, become a unique resource to the future. In addition to establishing physical proof supporting the interpretations and conclusions drawn from the excavation, these materials offer a resource for future interpretations based on alternative views and ever improving analytical techniques. Archaeologists share a responsibility to preserve not only the site they have excavated, but also the collections and records that have come from or relate to their excavation activities. How can we meet our ethical responsibility to preserve these finds and what is involved in their preservation? Is preservation an active measure in which the resource is put to some use, or is it a passive shelving of remains? How do we determine the allocation of limited resources to preserve these finds, and how do we prioritize the present and future value of these collections?<\/p>\n
Archaeological collections have an increasingly diverse set of functions as research tool, educational resource, and gateway to cultural identity. The cultural values placed upon objects and the interaction with those objects, by groups whose ancestry lays specific ownership claims, is continually being redefined and expanded. What are the preservation challenges in meeting the needs of all these \u2018users\u2019? How can their justifiable needs be balanced with the desire to retain the physical integrity of the object and its analytical worth?<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Terry Childs (USA)
\nKrist\u00edn Huld Siguroard\u00f3ttir (Iceland)
\nHande K\u00f6kten Ersoy (Turkey)
\nJessica Johnson (USA)
\nNicola Longford (USA)
\nHedley Swain (UK)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nThe Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nPresenters:<\/p>\n
Selma al Radi (USA)
\nZainab Bahrani (USA)
\nPatty Gerstenblith (USA)
\nMaria Kouroupas (USA)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nUS\/ICOMOS and the World Monuments Fund<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nIn the face of the increasing and varied threats to archaeological sites today, there is a great need for creative and compelling approaches to the protection and conservation of the archaeological heritage. Archaeological sites are not only scientific, social, and historic resources; they are also important economic resources. Often they are protected to the extent that conservation is perceived as providing economic benefit. However, is the economic incentive the only or the strongest push for conservation or do social, cultural, religious or political values also come into play? What is the future of sites without tourist appeal if the economic factor prevails in management decisions? Can legislation alone save them from other forms of development?<\/p>\n
This sub-theme will consider new and innovative responses to address these current challenges. The session will present a variety of models, from radical privatization, through management by non-governmental organizations, to management that is implemented largely by government employees, passing through models of private-public partnerships and the participation of local communities and traditional owners, such as indigenous communities, in the preservation efforts. The concept of sustainability in archaeological conservation will be addressed, as will approaches to presentation that reduce pressures for development on site by relying upon virtual rather than bricks-and-mortar presentation techniques.<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Douglas Comer (USA)
\nLarry Armony (St Kitts)
\nAysar Akrawi (Jordan)
\nPisit Charoenwongsa (Thailand)
\nGaetano Palumbo (France)
\nNeil Silberman (Belgium)
\nJohn Sunderland (Belgium)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nEnglish Heritage<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nConservation interventions on archeological sites are one of the most critical areas of collaboration between archaeologists and conservation professionals. There is increasing recognition by both fields of the loss of cultural and information value that occurs when elements of a site are removed to a museum or other location for preservation reasons or when the site is, in effect, abandoned. As a result, in situ conservation is being increasingly advocated and practiced on archaeological sites.<\/p>\n
Within the conservation field, greater emphasis is being placed on preventing deterioration by determining its causes and then reducing them by modifying the environment (passive or preventive intervention), rather than intervening directly on the material remains to repair damage (remedial intervention). However, both approaches continue to play a significant role in the conservation of archaeological remains, and both benefit from integrated advance planning and an understanding of the causes of deterioration at the site.<\/p>\n
Preventive conservation interventions range from site reburial (backfilling), to protective cover buildings (shelters). Remedial interventions consist of different forms of structural consolidation. An overview of these different approaches and techniques will be presented, and then illustrated by case studies from the ancient silk road city of Merv, Turkmenistan, the hominid trackway at Laetoli, Tanzania, and the Bronze Age city of Tell Mozan\/Urkesh, Syria, where archaeologists and conservation professionals have collaborated to conserve sites in an innovative, yet pragmatic manner. These examples will highlight the importance of planning in advance, involving stakeholders, preventing deterioration, and intervening during excavation, in achieving successful site conservation.<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Giorgio Buccellati (USA)
\nMartha Demas (USA)
\nJohn A. Fidler (UK)
\nFrank Matero (USA)
\nTim Williams (UK)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nSouth African Heritage Resource Agency, ICCROM, and the Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session will address the question \u201cHow effective is the application of methods and procedures recommended by UNESCO conventions and guidelines, the Getty Conservation Institute, ICCROM and other international organizations, for the conservation and management of archaeological sites and rock art?\u201d<\/p>\n
The Southern African region provides a useful test case. It includes countries at various stages of economic development and with a rich legacy of rock art and archaeological sites that are significant to a range of stakeholders. Advice and assistance in the form of study bursaries, research programs, equipment, workshops and courses have been generously given by donor countries and international organizations for decades. More recently, several regional initiatives have developed to share expertise and resources. Given that the conservation management of this legacy remains low on the official list of priorities, and is in competition with urgent social needs associated with war, poverty and HIV-Aids, effective methods must be developed to retain the significance of the sites. The session will engage the audience in debate about strategies that have and have not worked.<\/p>\n
Some of the issues to be debated using Southern African case studies and input from experiences of colleagues in other parts of the world, will include:
\n1. Gathering information
\n– What methods and procedures for information-gathering, archiving and database management are operating with limited staff and budgets?
\n– What happens when basic skills and equipment for record-keeping, condition assessment and reporting are absent?
\n2. Stakeholders
\n– What procedures have been used to reconcile the often competing rights, ownership, ethical behavior and interests of stakeholders such as indigenous people, local communities, site managers and conservation specialists?
\n– Who owns photographs or copies of rock paintings and engravings?
\n3. Management strategies
\n– What strategies have been used at places with intangible heritage, such as the presence of ancestral spirits, and with current ritual use by local people who may have no connection to the rock art or older occupation deposits?
\n– What training initiatives have been successful in empowering stakeholders to manage and derive benefits from rock art and archaeological sites?
\n– Experiences of conservation intervention \u2013 is minimum intervention best?
\n– How do we evaluate the needs of the place versus the needs of the community, for example regarding tourism potential, different entrance fees for local people and tourists, or urgently needed land for housing?
\n– Does nomination of a place on the World Heritage List help to conserve it?
\n4. Monitoring
\n– Can effective monitoring be done without a budget?
\n– What are the best success stories of rock art or archaeological sites that are open to the public and are self-sustaining?<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
George Abungu (Kenya)
\nJanette Deacon (South Africa)
\nJannie Loubser (USA)
\nWebber Ndoro (Italy)
\nSven Ouzman (USA)
\nBenjamin Smith (South Africa)
\nPhenyo Churchill Thebe (Botswana)
\nPresentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nThe Getty Conservation Institute<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis sub-theme will analyze the challenges that face archaeologists and conservation professionals in planning, decision-making, and management of archaeological sites and objects. At the same time, it will focus on the growing role of the community and its various leaders in deciding what to protect and how. It will consist of two sessions: \u2018Concepts and Values\u2019 and \u2018Practice and Futures.\u2019 The first session will address contemporary practice and the second will augment this discussion with perceptions of stakeholder involvement in the future of these projects.<\/p>\n
The concept of stakeholders implies that no single constituency has the right to stake an individual claim to heritage. We are concerned not so much with who owns the heritage as how we can protect it and how it can be used as a bridge to achieve a better understanding of diverse perspectives, leading to a respect for cultural diversity and an awareness of universal values.<\/p>\n
Heritage managers have long been required to deal effectively with difference, but it is only within the past decade that explicit models, such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, have been developed and made available through publication. The need for effective models has grown out of the recognition that heritage is extraordinarily valuable and can be highly contentious, leading to prolonged judicial disputes that frequently do little to resolve the fundamental issues and more often than not heighten tensions between different voices.<\/p>\n
This panel will bring academics and practicing professionals with a track record of building bridges together with individuals who represent community voices. It will profile the success stories, those models that have worked, analyzing why they worked while touching only briefly upon the context of the case study. In other words, the focus will be on why it worked rather than what happened.<\/p>\n
While heritage conservation has typically been considered a technical problem, social and economic issues have frequently been at the forefront of our thoughts over the past two decades. Who are the interest groups and what are their social values? What are the consequences of their holding these values? What are meaningful ways to negotiate and how can heritage conservation specialists be more effective in their day-to-day practice?<\/p>\n
Presenters:<\/p>\n
Angel Cabeza (Chile)
\nRodney Harrison (Australia)
\nRichard Mackay (Australia)
\nFernando Maia Pinto (Portugal)
\nSergio Rapu (Chile)<\/p>\n
Presentations<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room Hannan 108<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Convened By The Getty Conservation Institute in collaboration with a consortium of international organizations Theme Details Please note that all the sessions (1.5 \u2013 2 hours each) organized under this theme will take the form of moderated panel discussions with invited presenters and responders, followed by dialogue with the audience. They are intended to address … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":2159,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2200","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2200"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2200\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2787,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2200\/revisions\/2787"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}